You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access.

By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More, with absolutely No Ads or Popups.

Membership is absolutely FREE and registration is FAST & SIMPLE so please, Register Today and join one of the friendliest communities on the net!

All members please note: Imagebam and Imgbox will NOT be shutting down services. Imagebam and Imgbox are now open once again and all services are available. We wish to thank our wonderful members at this forum for all of the help and assistance that was provided before this welcome news was received.

Celebrity, Film & Television DiscussionFor all of your chat, opinion and thoughts on mainstream celebrities, film and television programmes.

EDIT: I just read a brief article about this. I'm amused by the claim they make:

Quote:

The photos were reportedly taken by Watson’s stylist, who then gave all the rights to Watson.

As if this immediately happened. I'm sure the stylist wasn't thinking of that at the time. The lawyers had to create a story to explain ownership.

Almost any time Emma's made a public appearance in the past couple of years, before the event she's posted pictures to social media of the outfit she's going to wear for it. These pictures are generally taken by her stylist, Sarah Slutsky (c'mon, let's be grown-ups here, okay?,) and no doubt she also takes pictures of outfits that are rejected. Given the date these were taken in 2014, I believe this was a wardrobe test for a royal charity event of some sort held at Windsor castle a day or two thereafter. Pretty clearly, this outfit was rejected for obvious reasons.

As the photographer who took the picture, Ms. Slutsky owned all rights to it. Getting those rights reassigned to Emma was no doubt as simple as a phone call and emailing a PDF form for her to "e-sign" and return. She didn't have to do it in 2014, when the pictures were taken, she could give away those rights at any time. (I believe to sell the rights for publication, she'd have to also have a signed model release from Emma.)

{It's also quite possible that Ms. Slutsky's contract with Emma as her stylist includes a blanket re-assignment of rights to any picture she takes of Emma pursuant to her work to Emma.}

So, in any case, yes, you can be sure that some version of Ms. Slutsky re-assigning the rights to Emma did happen.

Last edited by leviathan0999; 10-11-2016 at 07:36 PM..
Reason: Correction of a typo

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to leviathan0999 For This Useful Post:

I'm guessing not her. The woman in the bath seems a good bit heavier than Emma, has strange tan lines (and a tan in the first place) and those breasts look like they've nursed a child or two. Children's shampoo isn't conclusive, but I'm guessing Emma doesn't use $8 a bottle product.

I think the evidence that it is her, is strong. You can't tell if she's heavier the way she sits in the bathtub, and the freckles match + the necklace pendant match too, so do also one of her bracelet. About the shampoo, why shouldn't she use a cheaper brand? DGJ makes organic products, and at a price at £3,45 ($4,25) for a small bottle (8,5 oz/250 ml) it is not exactly cheap, but kinda mid-range price-wise. Nobody says she has to buy $100 a bottle shampoo just because she's rich.

Emma have tan-lines from time to time, but it looks stupid in a strapless dress, so I guess she uses makeup like everybody else in the business to hide them. Just like she hide those beautiful freckles of hers, which is a shame. The breasts are absolutely perfect, and I doubt any kid has been sucking on them, the only thing is the size of the nipples -- they seems a bit too big for her, but then again, it could be the camera angel.